Trump Davos Interview Transcript

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/25/trump-interview-wi...Think everyone should read the interview transcript. I'm not sure how anyone can be against Trump at this point. He clearly has the country's best interests at heart. He's not nearly as draconian on immigration / DACA as people paint him to be - willing to negotiate and find a center ground.

In my opinion, the biggest upside of the Trump presidency thus far has been a systemic shift in confidence. He may not be the smartest guy in the room, but he's the guy who will hold his ground against anyone and fight the hardest for what he believes. In turn, this confidence cascades down to people who observe him and surround him, and it's domino effect which instills everyone with confidence.

The economy is booming, we did tax reform, and regulations are being scaled back. I don't know why anyone would be anti-trump at this point, unless you're anti- American exceptionalism.

Economically, the U.S. has been steadily improving for years. It's just that people didn't care about that reality for political purposes, now all of a sudden America is booming. He hasn't even been President long enough for his policies to show actual economic effect. I, for one, thought he would derail the economic train with the trade policies he espoused during his campaign, thankfully he's done almost nothing on that front (heavy tarrifs on china, withdrawing from NAFTA etc.). I am concerned about the deficit, something Republicans don't give a shit about all of a sudden.

As for DACA, based on his leaked proposal, he is just as draconian on immigration as thought. He wants to exchange DACA citizenship for a legal migration plan that would lead to the lowest levels of legal migration since the 1920s, according to the Washington Post. All of a sudden families wouldn't be able to sponsor their adult children/ other family members in order for them to get green cards. This comprises the majority of legal migration into this country. Acording to the leaked proposal, he is dangling DACA citizenship in exchange for changing immigration policy in a way that would decrease legal immigration dramatically. It's smoke and mirrors. Now you may be for this, but don't say that he's "less draconian" than we thought. That's incorrect. Of course, this is assuming the leaked proposal mirrors what they'll actually put forth to congress.

As for @TNA your "great President" was one of the biggest proponents of the "birther bullshit". You comparing that nonsense to an actual investigation, with actual charges, where Trump's son has been caught lying on multiple ocassions and associates have conveniently forgot to disclose Russian contacts on security documents is amazing. We have a real email where Don Jr. discusses meeting with an individual he thought to be related to the Russian government in order to get dirt on the opposing candidate. You may think the story has been blown out of proportion but to compare it to birtherism is ridiculous.

Economically, the U.S. has been steadily improving for years. It's just that people didn't care about that reality for political purposes, now all of a sudden America is booming. He hasn't even been President long enough for his policies to show actual economic effect. I, for one, thought he would derail the economic train with the trade policies he espoused during his campaign, thankfully he's done almost nothing on that front (heavy tarrifs on china, withdrawing from NAFTA etc.). I am concerned about the deficit, something Republicans don't give a shit about all of a sudden.

As for DACA, based on his leaked proposal, he is just as draconian on immigration as thought. He wants to exchange DACA citizenship for a legal migration plan that would lead to the lowest levels of legal migration since the 1920s, according to the Washington Post. All of a sudden families wouldn't be able to sponsor their adult children/ other family members in order for them to get green cards. This comprises the majority of legal migration into this country. Acording to the leaked proposal, he is dangling DACA citizenship in exchange for changing immigration policy in a way that would decrease legal immigration dramatically. It's smoke and mirrors. Now you may be for this, but don't say that he's "less draconian" than we thought. That's incorrect. Of course, this is assuming the leaked proposal mirrors what they'll actually put forth to congress.

As for @TNA your "great President" was one of the biggest proponents of the "birther bullshit". You comparing that nonsense to an actual investigation, with actual charges, where Trump's son has been caught lying on multiple ocassions and associates have conveniently forgot to disclose Russian contacts on security documents is amazing. We have a real email where Don Jr. discusses meeting with an individual he thought to be related to the Russian government in order to get dirt on the opposing candidate. You may think the story has been blown out of proportion but to compare it to birtherism is ridiculous.

I agree that it is premature to fully assess Trump's economic legacy. And I'm glad that he hasn't ripped all our trade agreements to shreds. We are in the midst of a fairly long economic recovery cycle, one that began in 2009 in the aftermath of the financial crisis and the subsequent deleveraging by households. However, I do believe that Trump's corporate tax cut and deregulations have played a major role in the overall shift in economic confidence and optimism, in addition to the stock market rally. The former is an underrated point, as confidence can be hard to measure, and as Ray Dalio said, Trump's policies have ushered in the "animal spirits" of capitalism.

Obama inherited a terrible mess, no doubt, but his policies raised the anxiety of business owners and corporations due to onerous regulations (i.e., Obamacare, Dodd-Frank, EPA regulations, etc.) and the policy uncertainty rising out of that. During the Obama administration, the government issued more than 600 major regulations that cost $700 billion over the 8 years of Obama's presidency. Such a burden makes it difficult for businesses to confidently make investments and plan for the future. Also, Obama's stimulus did not cut the corporate or marginal tax rates, even though that would have been very helpful during the recession. Rather, the "tax cut" portion of the stimulus simply expanded existing credits and deductions.

On immigration, I think you and the Democrats are way off base here. Trump explicitly campaigned on no amnesty for illegals, so the proposal that was unveiled (assuming that this is the final proposal, which is not at all certain) is a major shift from his campaign rhetoric. It is generous because it not only grants legal status to DACA recipients and all illegals who came as minors (the group colloquially known as "Dreamers"), but it gives them a path to citizenship once certain criteria are satisfied. It allows them to become fully integrated citizens of this great country, giving them skin in the game.

As for legal immigration, the proposal as outlined did call for the elimination of chain migration for non-immediate family (immediate being defined as spouses and children), BUT there is a huge caveat: the applicants on the waitlist would be let in, a number amounting to 4 million over the course of 20 years. So we don't yet know what the precise quantitative impact on legal immigration will be, but let's say that the reduction is 50%. What exactly is wrong with that, assuming that we transition into a merit based system? We can have a policy discussion on the optimal immigration level and process, but the Left is not simply saying that they disagree with the policy. They are arguing hysterically that ANY reduction in legal immigration is tantamount to racism, xenophobia, and is indicative of white supremacy. Now I'm not saying that is your position, as I'm making a broader point here about the Left's rhetoric on immigration. However, it does underscore the fact that a sovereign nation with sovereign borders has the fundamental right to determine who gets in, how many, and the criteria by which they are selected. Ultimately, our immigration policy should first and foremost benefit the Americans and legal residents. Even if this plan were to be implemented, it would allow talented people from all countries of origin and ethnic backgrounds, to get in. There is ZERO racial filtering or favoritism to white people in this proposal.

If the Democrats reject this proposal, that will confirm once and for all how extreme they are on immigration. In return for path to citizenship for roughly 1.8 million illegal aliens, they are unwilling to accept increased border security, faster deportations, and a reform to our legal immigration system. In short, they would be unsatisfied with anything but total amnesty and citizenship for ALL illegal aliens and virtual open borders. Unbelievable.

Thank you for actually addressing my points rather than making some non-sensical, pointless, no value-add, comments like "liberals are the sheep or consumer and business confidence are real things".

1.) I agree that business confidence and economic confidence are up under the Trump presidency, my point is we need to see what that translates to before celebrating. As I mentioned down below, tax cuts (which I agreed with) are nice if they ACTUALLY lead to capex and wage growth. Same with repatriation. But last time we did repatriation under GWB companies just spent the $ on m&a/ buybacks. The fact of the matter is wage growth has been stagnant since the 70s and no administration has been able to make reasonable progress in solving that issue. Let's let the economic story play out before singing Trump's praises, especially when the effects of his policies (beyond the stock market which is just an indicator of capital confidence and not labor confidence) can't possibly be discerned yet. Especially when it's still unclear what he wants to do with NAFTA and othet trade agreements.

2.) We have disagreements on immigration that won't be resolved on this thread. Point taken on the existing applications, I was simply responding to OP that Trump is still very draconian on immigration, perhaps he's not a total extremist like he campaigned to be but he is still attempting to shift this countries' immigration policy further right than any modern President ever has. Understand that we can discuss Trump's racism and xenophobia and his actual policies separately, this is a policy discussion though so let's leave it at that.

Economically, the U.S. has been steadily improving for years. It's just that people didn't care about that reality for political purposes, now all of a sudden America is booming.

Yes, of course it's true that the economy has been "steadily improving" for years. That's what economies invariably do after recessions (hence the name "recoveries"). The issue that you so conveniently gloss over is that that improvement was the slowest ever recorded. In other words, Obama's recovery was the weakest on record, even though he had unprecedented support from the central bank and increased the debt more than all other presidents combined.

Do you notice the change in slope right on election day? Those stock market gains have already resulted in real economic gains and in improvements in labor market conditions.

The average quarterly growth rate in 2016: 1.85%The average quarterly growth rate in 2017: 2.5% (with the last 2 quarters 3%+ growth)

And this is before the tax cuts have even gone into effect. This is driven purely off of the expected growth associated with the tax cuts..

So as usual you lie and gloss over key issues and then jump right into your dogma. Something about Trump's proposal to naturalize 1.8M illegal immigrants being racist and talk of the birther conspiracy from 2011.

1.) Stock market gains are not necessarily indicative of economic gains, quarterly growth in the 1st year of Trump probably has nothing to do with his economic policies, as it's unlikely his policies showed an immediate effect (this should be fuckin obvious yet I have to repeat it)

2.) What are you talking about? You come with these garbage shit posts, it's becoming tiring. I never said anything about racism, Trump being racist, or his immigration policy being racist. I replied to @Dances With Newfoundland that this is a policy discussion and should remain that way. I wasn't the one who brought up the birther conspiracy either.

In sumation, fuck off. You're quickly devolving into a troll that shouldn't be responded to.

1.) Stock market gains are not necessarily indicative of economic gains, quarterly growth in the 1st year of Trump probably has nothing to do with his economic policies, as it's unlikely his policies showed an immediate effect (this should be fuckin obvious yet I have to repeat it)

It's true that stock market gains are not necessarily indicative of economic gains (though some would dispute this), which is why I linked it to real growth and alluded to the dramatic improvements in the labor market. His policies have shown an immediate effect, as demonstrated by the data that I graciously provided to you. Now whether or not you accept it is entirely up to you, but these trends will continue into the foreseeable future. Cognitive dissonance might be cool with the undergrads on WSO but I wouldn't recommend it when talking to serious professionals.

BobTheBaker:

2.) What are you talking about? You come with these garbage shit posts, it's becoming tiring. I never said anything about racism, Trump being racist, or his immigration policy being racist. I replied to @Dances With Newfoundland that this is a policy discussion and should remain that way. I wasn't the one who brought up the birther conspiracy either.

In sumation, fuck off. You're quickly devolving into a troll that shouldn't be responded to.

The reference to the birther shit is just your attempt to discredit his immigration policies by implying racism.

But more importantly, how long will WSO allow this nerd raging kid to continuously break guidelines by resorting to personal attacks and mindless profanity every time someone engages him in discussion? Kid, you seem to fundamentally misunderstand the nature of forums and discussion boards.

"It's true that stock market gains are not necessarily indicative of economic gains (though some would dispute this), which is why I linked it to real growth and alluded to the dramatic improvements in the labor market. His policies have shown an immediate effect, as demonstrated by the data that I graciously provided to you."

The "data" you provided for me is 1.) not indicative of economic gains and 2.) In no way proves that his policies have shown immediate economic effect. I hope you and the rest of WSO is smart enough to see that.

This is what I said: As for @TNA your "great President" was one of the biggest proponents of the "birther bullshit".

This is a fact. I stated reality. I didn't bring up the birther nonsense. I didn't imply anything. As you see through all my posts in this thread I have kept it on policy. Please refrain from putting words in my mouth in order to push your narrative and discredit valid points. Your post is garbage, it personifies mindless. As for you calling me a "kid"... is that supposed to get some kind of rise out of me? I don't care that much, you need to chill out. This exchange has been pathetic and pointless.

The "data" you provided for me is 1.) not indicative of economic gains and 2.) In no way proves that his policies have shown immediate effect. I hope you and the rest of WSO is smart enough to see that.

The change in the slope of stock market returns prior to and after the election is obvious to anyone with an unbiased mind. A similar shift in growth patterns is observed when you look at quarterly GDP figures. You can deny it now when there aren't a definitive number of data points but at some point your bias will be even more obvious than it is now.

BobTheBaker:

This is what I said: As for @TNA your "great President" was one of the biggest proponents of the "birther bullshit".

What does the birther shit have to do with what we're discussing at all? The answer is nothing. It's just another debating tool that you use to redirect the discussion from the actual issue at hand to something else (usually to an attack on the person that disagrees with you) entirely.

BobTheBaker:

Please refrain from putting words in my mouth in order to push your narrative and discredit valid points. Your post is garbage, it personifies mindless. As for you calling me a "kid"... is that supposed to get some kind of rise out of me? I don't care that much, you need to chill out. This exchange has been pathetic and pointless.

You throw a fit whenever someone actually challenges you. Usually laced with gratuitous cursing (fucking bullshit this, fucking bullshit that) and accusations of bias and/or "garbage." I mean, I get why you do it. You think the aggression and the expression of rage somehow gives you authority. It's also an easy way to avoid tricky items that hurt your argument (notice how you don't address any of my points related to how weak Obama's recovery was?) but it's inherently a fallacy. Really, it literally is.

I call you a kid because it's how you present yourself (as a whiney one as well).

1.) The change in slope in the stock market has nothing to do with economic gains. The change in quarterly GDP does not prove Trump's policies showed immediate economic growth, one could easily argue the economy was already headed that way. I mean I don't know how else to repeat it. Obama had quarters where GDP grew by 5%+ deep into his presidency, let's keep a longterm view when we access these numbers rather than get mired in our political sycophancy.

2.) Nothing, I didn't bring it up, another poster did, but you conveniently continue to ignore that. I responded to that post. I didn't even discuss it in the context of immigration or the economy.

3.) A fit? That's funny. You didn't "challenge" anything. You threw out a single data point that proves nothing then tried to derail the debate by accusing me of "dogma" and accusing me of calling Trump a racist, which never happened. As for the weak recovery, I've thrown out many reasons why that could be the case in previous posts which is why I didn't address it here. For example, the fact that the government bailed out businesses and did not allow the recession to turn into a full blown depression has alot to do with the "weak recovery". We didn't hit the valley thus the journey back to the peak wasn't as fast as it could've been. Central bank policy is meant to "smooth" the business cycle out, which is essentially what the Fed and the government did with the bail out. You can argue whether or not they should've done this but I believe this is why the recovery was relatively slow.

If you want to further discuss this then we can, but please leave the nonsense at the door: your false accusations of me accusing Trump of being racist in the immigration debate, your pathetic attempts to patronize me by calling me a whiney kid (lol), etc. As you can see, @Dances With Newfoundland and I have managed to keep the discussion to policy. You should try it.

p.s. Apologies if some curse words hurt your tender sensibilities, I'll take that into consideration next time you pathetically attempt to troll me.

1.) The change in slope in the stock market has nothing to do with economic gains. The change in quarterly GDP does not prove Trump's policies showed immediate economic growth, one could easily argue the economy was already headed that way. I mean I don't know how else to repeat it. Obama had quarters where GDP grew by 5%+ deep into his presidency, let's keep a longterm view when we access these numbers rather than get mired in our political sycophancy.

Yes, Obama had quarters with >5% growth and he had quarters with <-1.5% growth. Throughout the course of his presidency there certainly was a lot of volatility. That said, no single year exceeded 3% for the first time in U.S. history. Further, I'm looking at sharp changes in slope. Lets look at the last 8 quarters:

So we're seeing the beginning of a new trend line in terms of real economic growth that appears to be mimicking the growth observed in the stock market, but as a lagged variable. I anticipate this going forward, assuming that the FED doesn't hit the brakes too hard and too soon.

My question to you is, what will you say if Trump hits 3%+ growth by FYE 2018? A feat that Obama couldn't achieve one time throughout his presidency and with massive fiscal and monetary stimulus. Seriously, what's your response then?

BobTheBaker:

2.) Nothing, I didn't bring it up, another poster did, but you conveniently continue to ignore that. I responded to that post. I didn't even discuss it in the context of immigration or the economy.

I don't see where ANT mentioned birther but honestly, it's not relevant.

BobTheBaker:

As for the weak recovery, I've thrown out many reasons why that could be the case in previous posts which is why I didn't address it here. For example, the fact that the government bailed out businesses and did not allow the recession to turn into a full blown depression has alot to do with the "weak recovery".

I don't know why weak recovery is in quotes. It literally is the weakest recovery, both in terms of labor market conditions and in GDP growth, in U.S. history. That said, why would a government induced "soft landing" lead to a weak recovery? Can you elaborate on this

BobTheBaker:

We didn't hit the valley thus the journey back to the peak wasn't as fast as it could've been. Central bank policy is meant to "smooth" the business cycle out, which is essentially what the Fed and the government did with the bail out. You can argue whether or not they should've done this but I believe this is why the recovery was relatively slow.

But before you do that, perhaps you can consider a more intuitive explanation:

Obama's recovery act literally paid people not to work. He extended unemployment benefits to unprecedented levels which depressed labor force participation. To this day, those that exited the labor market are having difficulty reentering it.

He increased taxes (directly and through Obama care)

Obamacare made it too costly to hire people full time. As a result, we saw a massive spike in part-time employment, increasing the underemployment figure. Seventy-four percent of small-business owners said they have or intend to reduce hours, or fire people, or simply not hire as a result of ObamaCare.

Increased regulations: According to The Wall Street Journal: "Pages in the Code of Federal Regulations hit an all-time high of 174,545 in 2012. ... The cost of federal rules exceeded $1.8 trillion, roughly equal to the GDP of Canada. These costs are embedded in nearly everything Americans buy ... at $14,768 per household, meaning that red tape is now the second largest item in the typical family budget after housing.

I could go on (pro union policies, anti-debt holder positions with GM bailout, etc.) but there's a reason why Obama's recovery never saw a single year of 3% growth, had the longest period of escalated involuntary unemployment and near record lows on labor force participation. Hint: it's not a right wing conspiracy.

BobTheBaker:

If you want to further discuss this then we can, but please leave the nonsense at the door: your false accusations of me accusing Trump of being racist in the immigration debate, your pathetic attempts to patronize me by calling me a whiney kid (lol), etc. As you can see, @Dances With Newfoundland and I have managed to keep the discussion to policy. You should try it.

p.s. Apologies if some curse words hurt your tender sensibilities, I'll take that into consideration next time you pathetically attempt to troll me.

Firstly, using the stock market as a proxy to evaluate a President's success is a questionable practice at best, and using a one year sample size rapidly approaches absurdity. But since you insisted on inserting it into the conversation, we might as well have an exhaustive exposition of it.

As a matter of convenience, your go-to chart begins during Obama's second term in office, not his first term in which the gains were considerably higher. In fact, the market increased 47% his first year in office and averaged 19.9% over his first four years. This was also 3.4% better than international stocks average over the same time period. Over his 8 years of office, U.S. stocks outperformed international stocks by 7.2%, which is five full percentage points higher than the historical discrepancy. In year one, trump has underperformed against international stocks by -5.1%. It appears "America First" has yet to translate to the stock market. But, alas, in my opinion, it's all largely an exercise in folly at this point.

Moving on. Growth in the real U.S. economy, as measured by GDP, has appeared to have accelerated. I have no issue conceding this point, but I'd hedge it by saying that it could very well prove to be a pyrrhic victory depending on how it's maintained. The dollar has weakened substantially over 2017, and the U.S. Treasury seems to tacitly, if not explicitly, endorse a weak dollar in the short-term. This will boost GDP in the interim, until others respond in kind. In a global economy that's intricately intertwined there are still severe unintended consequences to unilateral decisions regarding trade deals, monetary policy, ect. However, despite my demurring, I'm more than willing to keep an open mind and eat my hat if the economy continues to plow forward for the next four years.

Lastly, the President presides over much more than the economy. You are attempting to adjudicate policies that were primarily intended to redress social and environmental issues in a purely economic lens. Yes, regulation incurs a cost on the economy. Yes, ensuring an adequate social safety net incurs a cost on the economy. These are all known a priori and does not preclude them from having a net societal benefit. There is more to individual well-being then the GDP number published by the BEA at the end of each quarter.

I agree that Trump has been good for business. No disagreement there. But simply advancing a collection plate of business interests while undermining political institutions, sowing social divide, disparaging foreign leaders, allies, whole continents, and perpetuating patent falsehoods does not, in my eyes, immediately qualify you as a great president.

2) Dems and the press created division by takjngnwhat trump said out of context (all Mexicans are rapists), calling him a racist (he isn't), and endlessly reporting unverified sources which are continually proven wrong.

3) cutting the corporate tax creates jobs and makes the US more competitive. Corporate taxes are not paid, they are collected from consumers through higher prices or less employees.

2) Dems and the press created division by takjngnwhat trump said out of context (all Mexicans are rapists), calling him a racist (he isn't), and endlessly reporting unverified sources which are continually proven wrong.

3) cutting the corporate tax creates jobs and makes the US more competitive. Corporate taxes are not paid, they are collected from consumers through higher prices or less employees.

You have this wrong. Cutting taxes creates jobs because it makes the US more competitive. Not because cutting taxes ==>> altruism in labor markets or something. So, if the US' competitiveness slips due to Trump's antics or a weaker dollar from an increase in the deficit, then there's no progress. Blind people are praising Trump for stuff he hasn't actually done yet.

Firstly, using the stock market as a proxy to evaluate a President's success is a questionable practice at best, and using a one year sample size rapidly approaches absurdity. But since you insisted on inserting it into the conversation, we might as well have an exhaustive exposition of it.

There's a clear shift in the slope prior to and after election day. This is not about sample sizes. I'm not creating a predictive model. I'm not testing for statistical significance. I'm showing an obvious change in pattern at a very specific date and I'm providing the mos blatantly obvious explanation imaginable. Seriously. Only someone with no shame would make the claim that the rapid increase in the slope of the curve, on election day, is just coincidence.

Schreckstoff:

As a matter of convenience, your go-to chart begins during Obama's second term in office, not his first term in which the gains were considerably higher.

Yes, that's because I actually understand statistics and apparently you do not. Go ahead and google "Structural change" and how to deal with it in statistics. The set of economic conditions in Obama's first term (trough to recovery) is significantly different from that of his second term (recovery to stabilized growth) and thus you treat them differently.

Schreckstoff:

In fact, the market increased 47% his first year in office and averaged 19.9% over his first four years.

Irrelevant. Can't compare trough to peak growth in a 0% interest rate environment with trillions of dollars in economic stimulus to periods of normalized growth. This is like CFA level 1 stuff.

Schreckstoff:

This was also 3.4% better than international stocks average over the same time period. Over his 8 years of office, U.S. stocks outperformed international stocks by 7.2%, which is five full percentage points higher than the historical discrepancy. In year one, trump has underperformed against international stocks by -5.1%. It appears "America First" has yet to translate to the stock market. But, alas, in my opinion, it's all largely an exercise in folly at this point.

LOL I have never seen this used as a benchmark ever. Liberal manipulation of statistics really knows no bounds. How long did it take you to google this gem? Also, I'd love to see the data that underlies this comedy. What, exactly, goes into the "international stocks" category and how are the relative indices weighted? Is it just the MSCI?

Schreckstoff:

Lastly, the President presides over much more than the economy. You are attempting to adjudicate policies that were primarily intended to redress social and environmental issues in a purely economic lens. Yes, regulation incurs a cost on the economy. Yes, ensuring an adequate social safety net incurs a cost on the economy. These are all known a priori and does not preclude them from having a net societal benefit. There is more to individual well-being then the GDP number published by the BEA at the end of each quarter.

I'll let the nationalist populists argue this one with you. Myself, I prefer to discuss objective, clean data.

LOL I have never seen this used as a benchmark ever. Liberal manipulation of statistics really knows no bounds. How long did it take you to google this gem? Also, I'd love to see the data that underlies this comedy. What, exactly, goes into the "international stocks" category and how are the relative indices weighted? Is it just the MSCI?

Oh how quickly you retreat behind your standard bastion of condescension and conspiracy. This is such a stupid, histrionic claim it practically drools. You have never seen the U.S. domestic capital markets performance compared to an international index? Let me refer you to the above advice

Esuric:

Go ahead and google

Or, alternatively, here is a link to a brief published by JPM in which they are engaging in what is apparently unprecedented analysis/boundless liberal deceit by making such comparisons.

In the analysis I referred to, the VGTSX FTSE Global All cap index fund was used as the international benchmark.

But since its not voodoo liberal statistics it can easily be deconstructed and shown across individual market indexes:

Despite your condescension of Himalayan proportions, I'm clearly not trying to refute your assertion that there was a change in slope. I'm adding additional color commentary to it.

There was a change in slope in the stock market following Trump's election. Yes.

The U.S equity markets under-performed against the international composite. Yes.

2017 was a particularly strong year across all markets and certainly not unique to the U.S. Yes.

While this additional context might be inconvenient to your original implication they are not irrelevant to the broader discussion. Now, carry on with your liberal contempt.

It's really easy to feel good in this economic environment. Who doesn't like access to credit, a little build in the good ole nest egg, and a decent paying job? I think people overestimate how good a president is in good times and how bad one is in bad times. Remember, Reagan entered into his presidency headed into a recession and still turned economic conditions around. Trump had all green signals entering into his presidency. In fact, talk now is what tools are available, since tax reform is already passed, once the inevitable recession strikes.

The deficit is going to explode and we haven't even started talking about how to pay for much needed infrastructure improvements. And no, private investments aren't going to pay for non-revenue generating roads and bridges and sewage systems etc.

And if things economically implode, it will be because of 8 years of unprecedented fed action and doubling the national debt. Oh and people complaining about the tax cut seem to ignore the costs associated with shitty Obamacare, which did nothing to bend the cost curve down.

Things were going to retract either way, I think that's the conventional wisdom. But an implosion comes after a jump in economic activity. 8 years, according to the conventional standard, is about 4x as long as a normal cycle. But, there have been little to no bubbles to speak of during this time, as well. That can probably be credited to the slow growth policies of the Obama administration, which might be viewed as too slow, and a lot of people seemed to be hurting due to low wage growth, etc.

But I think we can agree that the period of slow growth has ended. Record breaking results such as with tech companies and bank stocks during the last 6 months of 2017 all came as a result of some Obama administration economic policies. And yes, I think we're officially at an inflection point where we're now pass what Obama has done and moving into where Trump is. I'd be interested to see how well the economy handles now that the transition looks to be complete.

Investment spending needs to come with higher wage growth, else it'll lead to a disoriented market, or high inflation. In times like these, markets tend to pocket investment returns, poring into high return markets and creating bubbles. Slow growth may have led to slow investment spending and slow wage growth, but that's probably the reason no real bubbles formed in the past 8 years.

Tax cuts could be dramatically bad. But I think being overly worried about having no tools in a recession is a bad way to think. Tax cuts will always have a directly negative effect on the deficit, so cutting taxes while entering into a recession only worsen debt burdens. Cutting taxes now was probably the wise thing to do, as the booming economy gives some head room to recover some of the tax losses through growth. But the economic boom should also lead to much higher rates than the ones we're seeing now. That inflation that I think can kick in from higher investment spending will do it. The recession will be put off and hopefully more tools will be available to address that at the right time.

All of this is to say that I think through Ben Bernanke, Obama used the tools at his disposal and Trump looks to be doing the same, using the past to guide the future. The economic considerations seem to be quite grounded in historical precedent on both fronts. Cut interest rates and relieve debt during a severe long-term debt cycle, and don't cut taxes while heading into a recession.

Why was the Fed raising rates? Because the economy was already steadily improving. You argue against yourself in your first sentence.

Agreed regarding the corp tax rate, but we have yet to see the effect of that. The economy grew at 3% Q12017-Q32017. Ironically, the newly released numbers for Q42017 show growth at 2.6%, below economists expectations. It has yet to be seen whether this new rate will lead to real capex spending or a bunch of M&A and stock buy backs. Overall, I think the cut was necessary, although a commensurate cut in spending elsewhere would've been nice.

Recessions happen for various and often unforseeable reasons, let's not try and be prophets. Healthcare needs to be addressed in a real way in this country, I have yet to see anything from either party that brings the cost curve down. I have seen studies that show Obamacare slowed the cost growth rate while covering more people though.

Trump has the potential to be a great president, but isn't there yet. I hate always going back to Ben Shapiro's points (I don't believe in stealing people's ideas without giving credit), but to his point, Trump's policies are largely good, but a president is more than public policy. A president should be able to unite people and to give the nation a common purpose. Trump has had all the opportunity in the world to seek out detente and to tone down the rhetoric but has consciously chosen not to.

So yeah, Trump could be a great president. The question is, will Trump choose to be great or not? I don't think he will. I don't think it's in his nature. I think Trump's ceiling is a simply "good" president, which is unfortunate.

Because Obama united people? Look, I agree with most of your post, but it's unfair to judge Trump 1 year in. After next year, when we are past the halfway point, I think we can finally get a better picture of what type of president he is. The media has never been so juvenile nor repugnant as they are now. This skews public perception of what is going on. We have now entered the "time of idiots," as more people get news from facebook/twitter/social media than actually read transcripts of meetings, legislation, or have access to unbiased reporting.

I think a "good" Trump President is actually a win for the US. His ceiling is high but his floor is low(er than politicians). People will refuse to acknowledge his growth. I also doubt Trump will be great, but I also think he has outperformed (my) expectations.

Consumer and business confidence are real things - they contributes to people spending more of their paychecks; it contributes to companies investing more in capex and hiring.

Tax reform and regulation rollback are real things - more goes to companies' / individuals' bottom lines and small business are freed of the chains which shackled them in the Obama era.

Market sentiment and performance are real things - Investors see the bigger picture and confidence in the macroeconomic environment drives additional institutional / retail investment into equities. Wealth grows, even if there is a later and inevitable regression to the mean.

I don't understand how you clowns can literally put your hands in front of your eyes and turn the the other way. It is a straight up case of denial and actually pathological.

Did we read the same transcript? Trump didn't in any way answer the following questions:

"Have you learned anything?""Would you do anything different now?""Are you opening up the door to reopening TPP?""Can you give me any indication of the way you're leaning?""What's going to happen on Monday with DACA?""Will Cotton go along with [10-12 years for citizenship]?""Will you ask for $25 billion?""Did Schumer offer $1.6 billion? ... How much did he agree to?""Will we have another shutdown?""Will you move more towards the center on immigration?"

Look, man, I'm a conservative but Trump can't string together a business conversation to save his life. There was no thought put into his responses, just "I've beaten ISIS" and "a lot of people have given me an A. Somebody gave me an A-plus."

Reciprocity doesn't make sense to be based on the same tariffs in exactly the same industries because countries specialize in different goods.

Have you ever considered that he isn't obligated to divulge information and details relating to every question he's asked? For some of these questions you have to hold your cards tight to your chest. A lot of the immigration / trade questions are sensitive and could be used as leverage against him, given there are ongoing talks and negotiations.

Lower prices for goods, yes. I'm sure someone losing $25k in annual income is happy they are saving $5k in consumer goods.

Globalism has pros and cons. Everything in moderation. No reason why we cannot have responsible globalism.

And Trump removes restrictions regarding drone usage, gave field generals freedom to operate and put Mattis in charge. ISIS isn't gone for good, but to pretend like Trumps policy shift had nothing to do with it is bulkshit.

Also agree with your points on military change, it's just reductionist and a bit silly to use the word "I" in that sentence. I can poke fun at the lack of humility without denigrating the real accomplishments, right? Trying to stay out of this left-right divide.

Yeah I mean HE didn't do squat. But he is a self promoter if nothing else.

IMO, imagine Tes Cruz in office. Dude would shut the government down over minutia. Trump will happily do a deal with Dems if it moves the chains forward. I think this scares Republicans.

And look at North Korea. There is an argument to be made that Trumps perceived insanity scares them. If you assume Kim is a rational actor who only wants to stay in power, negotiations with an irrational Trump could cause concern. All I know is the normal process has allowed Kim to get these weapons.

People are just too quick to dismiss something they aren't used to. Trumps been through bankruptcy negotiations, created and failed at various businesses, has been in real estate in the toughest city. The way the left portrays him as a bumbling idiot is simply not what reality has shown.

Donald Trump's Speech at Davos Was Aggressive, Thoughtful, and Well-Received

From the outset we knew that Donald Trump would be aggressive. The question was whether he would be aggressive and reckless or aggressive and thoughtful. Today at Davos he came across as aggressive and thoughtful and was well-received by the Davos crowd who was predisposed to be very critical.

It is also accurate that he created a lot of stimulation in a pro-business way so the economy and profits will pick up significantly over the near term. Those are facts. I won't comment on anything else right now.

Trump officials are asking companies which regulations give them the most grief. FDIC head wants more smaller banks. Wilbur Ross is the shit, nafta will remain, but be updated to current day, weak dollar will help exports.

Like i do t get the issue. DACA will remain. Literally this is trump negotiating 101. Start extreme, end up in the middle. He just beats up on people and the compromisss.

Of, the entire remake of the federal court system is the biggest, I talked about thing going on.

Trump officials are asking companies which regulations give them the most grief. FDIC head wants more smaller banks. Wilbur Ross is the shit, nafta will remain, but be updated to current day, weak dollar will help exports.

Like i do t get the issue. DACA will remain. Literally this is trump negotiating 101. Start extreme, end up in the middle. He just beats up on people and the compromisss.

Of, the entire remake of the federal court system is the biggest, I talked about thing going on.

It looks like Democrats are going to reject the generous amnesty deal. Unreal.

Democrats are absolutely batshit crazy on immigration. Here's what they want: amnesty and citizenship for all illegal aliens, no increased border security of any sort, no border protection, and continue to import unskilled immigrants in large numbers to our country. Their long-term goal is to add millions of government dependent lower class immigrants to the ranks of the Democratic Party.

I could've told you they'd reject that deal brother, no need to act surprised and/or indignant. Like I said, that deal would've pushed immigration policy further right than any modern president ever has, there was no way they would accept it. We both know that. Please stop pushing the myth that these immigrants are "government dependent". There's not much evidence to support that.

I could've told you they'd reject that deal brother, no need to act surprised and/or indignant. Like I said, that deal would've pushed immigration policy further right than any modern president ever has, there was no way they would accept it. We both know that. Please stop pushing the myth that these immigrants are "government dependent". There's not much evidence to support that.

51% of households headed by an immigrant uses at least 1 welfare program, compared to 30% of households headed by native born Americans. For illegal immigrant households, that percentage is 62%. It's important to note that contrary to popular opinion, illegal aliens can indeed receive welfare, for their U.S. born children. This is one reason why it is far more accurate to measure this at the household level.

We also have a recent comprehensive study of the Arizona state prison population over a 32-year time period. It shows that illegal aliens actually commit crime at a rate double that of Americans.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_i...You are right that Trump's proposal is more conservative than prior immigration plans. But the fact that Democrats are not willing to settle for anything less than citizenship for all illegals and cannot tolerate increased border security and merit-based legal immigration, shows how far out of sync the Democrats are on this issue.

I appreciate the reasoned and level-headed response, some of the constant vitriol get's tiresome (traitors lmao). It's the start of my weekend and I don't do WSO on weekends, I'll take a look at your studies and reply some time next week. I will say that you are making a leap when you say "Democrats are not willing to settle for anything less than citizenship for all illegals and cannot tolerate increased border security and merit-based legal immigration". That's entirely unnecessary, I'm sure there is some middle ground but this deal is totally unacceptable, you admit it's more conservative than prior immigration plans, why the hell should Democrats accept that? That isn't moderation nor negotiation. Anyway, have a good weekend.

I appreciate the reasoned and level-headed response, some of the constant vitriol get's tiresome (traitors lmao). It's the start of my weekend and I don't do WSO on weekends, I'll take a look at your studies and reply some time next week. I will say that you are making a leap when you say "Democrats are not willing to settle for anything less than citizenship for all illegals and cannot tolerate increased border security and merit-based legal immigration". That's entirely uneccesary, I'm sure there is some middle ground but this deal is totally unacceptable, you admit it's more conservative than prior immigration plans, why the hell should Democrats accept that? That isn't moderation nor negotiation. Anyway, have a good weekend.

Really confused by your argument here. This deal offers them citizenship for the large class of illegal aliens who came as minors but asks for concessions in return, which include wall, more border security and ICE agents, and transitioning into a merit based system of legal immigration. The Democratic leaders have firmly rejected this. So yes, it is totally reasonable to assert based on this that the Democrats are not willing to settle for anything less than what I described above.

Are you actually denying that Democrats do not want amnesty for the 12 million illegal aliens? Are you denying that Democrats do not want to transition into a merit based system and instead prefer importing ever increasing numbers of low skilled immigrants? The Democrats have made their position pretty clear on this, so I have no idea how you think my statement was hyperbole.

Yes, it's more conservative than the current status quo, which is totally out of sync with our national interests. Most Americans want protection for DACA recipients, yes, but they also want a more aggressive crackdown on illegals and want reduced LEGAL immigration as well.

1.) My argument is that this deal is not only conservative, but it is more conservative than even conservatives would've asked for a few years ago. Trump doesn't get to come from an extreme right perspective then propose a deal that is still very conservative and call it "negotiation". Democrats will not accept that, and I don't expect them to. This deal gives amnesty and citizenship to a select few but lowers levels of legal immigration drastically. Additionally, it essentially ends the idea of seeking asylum, an idea that has been ingrained in American society for 100+ years. That's how the Vietnamese and many other South Asians got here. They've contributed extensively to this country ever since. While it allows existing "chain migration" applicants to stay in line, there is no clear indication as to how that would work. The future effects would be devastating to legal migration and the White House knows that, there is no indication (AFAIK) they are even looking for a one-for-one replacement as far as chain to merit based goes. As for the wall, it is an idiotic vanity project, the money should be spent on technology and agents. Hoisting a wall across the southern border of the United States is a terrible idea, both for the environment and as far as how effective it would actually be.

2.) I am not denying that Democrats want amnesty. What I am denying is your statement that Democrats are "not willing to settle for anything less". I am sure you understand the distinction there.

Immigration reform in my eyes: increased border security through tech, a path to citizenship for every illegal that can prove they have worked consistently for X amount of years (I think the number should be 5+) and contributed to U.S. society since coming here (without commiting felonies or anything more than minor misdemeanors), amnesty without question for children (wtf they didn't choose to come here and we won't be deporting them), movement to a merit based system but ppl should still be able to bring their families here (Canada has something similar and I believe it is easier to bring family there), a crackdown on all companies and better verification to make sure companies CAN'T hire illegals (take away the incentive). People seeking asylum should still be able to get it, that's what has made this country the land of immigrants.

Per your welfare issue: http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsite...Relevant excerpt: In terms of fiscal impacts, first-generation immigrants are more costly to governments, mainly at the state and local levels, than are the native-born, in large part due to the costs of educating their children. However, as adults, the children of immigrants (the second generation) are among the strongest economic and fiscal contributors in the U.S. population, contributing more in taxes than either their parents or the rest of the native-born population

Conservatives tend to ignore the 2nd and 3rd order benefits of immigration, focusing only on the first generation.

1.) My argument is that this deal is not only conservative, but it is more conservative than even conservatives would've asked for a few years ago. Trump doesn't get to come from an extreme right perspective then propose a deal that is still very conservative and call it "negotiation". Democrats will not accept that, and I don't expect them to. This deal gives amnesty and citizenship to a select few but lowers levels of legal immigration drastically. Additionally, it essentially ends the idea of seeking asylum, an idea that has been ingrained in American society for 100+ years. That's how the Vietnamese and many other South Asians got here. They've contributed extensively to this country ever since. While it allows existing "chain migration" applicants to stay in line, there is no clear indication as to how that would work. The future effects would be devastating to legal migration and the White House knows that, there is no indication (AFAIK) they are even looking for a one-for-one replacement as far as chain to merit based goes. As for the wall, it is an idiotic vanity project, the money should be spent on technology and agents. Hoisting a wall across the southern border of the United States is a terrible idea, both for the environment and as far as how effective it would actually be.

2.) I am not denying that Democrats want amnesty. What I am denying is your statement that Democrats are "not willing to settle for anything less". I am sure you understand the distinction there.

Immigration reform in my eyes: increased border security through tech, a path to citizenship for every illegal that can prove they have worked consistently for X amount of years (I think the number should be 5+) and contributed to U.S. society since coming here (without commiting felonies or anything more than minor misdemeanors), amnesty without question for children (wtf they didn't choose to come here and we won't be deporting them), movement to a merit based system but ppl should still be able to bring their families here (Canada has something similar and I believe it is easier to bring family there), a crackdown on all companies and better verification to make sure companies CAN'T hire illegals (take away the incentive). People seeking asylum should still be able to get it, that's what has made this country the land of immigrants.

Per your welfare issue: http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsite...Relevant excerpt: In terms of fiscal impacts, first-generation immigrants are more costly to governments, mainly at the state and local levels, than are the native-born, in large part due to the costs of educating their children. However, as adults, the children of immigrants (the second generation) are among the strongest economic and fiscal contributors in the U.S. population, contributing more in taxes than either their parents or the rest of the native-born population

Conservatives tend to ignore the 2nd and 3rd order benefits of immigration, focusing only on the first generation.

Agreed on e-verify. I'm really upset that e-verify is not included in the latest proposal, as that would basically dry up the jobs for illegal aliens, and that is after all the primary reason they come here. Unfortunately, the corporate lobbies who want cheap labor wouldn't have that. Ugh.

I think the Democrats are being disingenuous here. Initially, the government shutdown was over DACA protection. Most people, conservatives included, agree that those who were brought here as minors, should not be deported. Trump's proposal solves that problem, by granting amnesty and path to citizenship for not just the DACA recipients but the broader class of illegal aliens who came as minors. His plan is actually more generous than Obama's in this regard. But since the Democrats rejected the plan, it is clear that they are not truly interested in DACA protection. DACA was merely a pawn to achieve their broader objective: amnesty for all illegal aliens, lax border security, and increased immigration of low skilled workers who undercut the wages of American workers.

We fundamentally disagree on amnesty. Citizenship is a privilege, and granting it to those who willingly violated our immigration laws as adults, is a slap in the face of our rule of law and particularly legal immigrants who went through the proper mechanism to become naturalized citizens. Of course, as I said before, this is ultimately what Democrats want, so they can add millions of new voters to their party.

Regarding the study on 2nd and 3rd generation immigrants, this is right. But I think there's an important caveat that we need to recognize. The 2nd and 3rd generation immigrants being referenced here are the children or grandchildren of immigrants who came here between 1965 (when America lifted the immigration restrictions that were imposed in 1924) and roughly 1990. These immigrants tended to be more well-educated skilled immigrants from Asia, as Asian countries back then were still relatively poor and could not retain their best talent. Given that IQ is genetic and that work ethic and emphasis on education are usually imparted on children by the parents, it makes sense that they are doing fairly well.

In contrast, the overall caliber of the more recent immigrant pool (roughly post-1990) is not as strong for 2 reasons: 1) we are accepting way more people than we used to (average legal immigrants per year during the 1970's was 425K, 624K during the 80's, 978K during the 90s, and slightly over 1MM since 00's), and 2) given the affluence of the Asian countries, the imperative for the best talent to move to the U.S. is not as pervasive as it used to be.

Regarding chain migration, yes, immigrants should be able to bring their immediate family. We are not asking them to drop everything and come here without their spouses and children. But the current chain migration system makes no sense. An immigrant is allowed to bring relatives, and they in turn can invite their relatives once they become citizens. Combined with our current diversity visa lotteries, this means that a doctor from say Nigeria, who does not have any family in the U.S., could wait longer to get in than say a janitor from El Salvador who happens to have family in the U.S. Trump's proposal aims to rectify that by capping chain migration and transition into a merit based system. Does this mean that the annual legal immigration quota of 1MM will be reduced? Absolutely. Is that a problem for our country in any meaningful sense? No.

End chain migration, full stop. If you want to come here with your family, they all have to apply.

Honestly, do we not have enough poor families? Why do we need more. Stay with your wife and kids and make your country better.

There is no other opinion on this.

1) we have a right to a defined border2) we have zero obligation to take people in3) people who break our laws and come here illegally are not citizens and are not covered by our rights

If you're family can't come and you can't leave them, tough luck. Everyone has a bleeding heart for everyone but actual Americans. Supporting and aiding illegal immigration is a crime against Americans. No grey zone.

1.) You know why e-verify isn't going to be a thing, America is a corporatocracy. I don't even think Republicans give a shit about illegal immigration, they know their base does so they throw them red meat, and of course they are against amnesty because they've done nothing to appeal to minorities so it's better to make sure some can't vote than to actually attempt to win them over.

2.) You are repeating yourself here, I disagree that his plan is "generous". Let's move on.

3.) I know we fundamentally disagree, I am not really concerned with the politics of it and the millions of new voters. We incentivized them to come here and they seeked out a better life, corporations and the capital holders profited off of their hard work. If they have contributed to this country in a meaningful way while staying out of criminal trouble, I think they deserve a path to be recognized as Americans. It's the moral thing to do. Sometimes things need not necessarily be about politics.

4.) I'll ignore that egregious IQ comment, which is essentially saying that Asians are smarter than Hispanics. There is alot of evidence that IQ tests aren't even reliable. Honestly it doesn't matter anyway, you can contribute positively to this nation without a high IQ through hard work and determination.

Your point on accepting immigrants in absolute numbers doesn't mean much. How many are we accepting as a percentage of the non-immigrant population? You're in finance you should know better.

Asians have largely been replaced by African countries in terms of skilled migration, we rely on family-based migration to get here in many cases. The numbers regarding our upward mobility and college degree attainment speak for themselves. As far as less-skilled immigrants, let's allow their second and third generation to develop before you make sweeping judgements about their government reliance, a situation that has existed initially among all immigrant groups.

5.) It's a long process to become a citizen, then once you do that it's a long process to attempt to get your relatives here, and once they start that process they could be in line for years, this sudden falsehood that it just happens is a myth. The diversity visa needs to go, but honestly such a small number get in through the diversity visa I don't understand why it's become a sticking point. Roughly 50,000 of 1 million, so about 5% of legal immigration is from the diversity visa. I don't see why the annual legal immigration quota needs to be reduced.

Egregious IQ comment? WTF does that even mean? Are you really denying that IQ is genetic and is a heritable trait? Well, every study has confirmed the heritability of IQ and moreover, that IQ is a powerful explanatory variable of one's earning power, life success, and even health. So yes, IQ is important. My point broadly was that the overall immigrant pool was stronger when the pool was smaller. That invariably makes sense since if you increase the immigrant pool, you will dilute the quality with respect to education and skills. As for Asians vs hispanics, the average IQ of East Asian countries is higher than Latin American countries, and the average SAT scores of East Asian students in the U.S. is higher than that of Latinos. These are hardly controversial statements.

The raw number of immigrants do matter because as I said earlier, the increase in the # beginning in the 90's due to increased and relaxed chain migration policy, diversity visa lotteries, refugee resettlements, etc., have resulted in more uneducated unskilled immigrants coming in. Let's look at the group you mentioned: Sub-Saharan Africans. Overall, they are indeed more educated than the average American population. But as this group's population in the U.S. has increased, its level of education has declined. In 1990, sub-Saharan immigrants were more likely than the native born to have completed a high school education and more than twice as likely to have a college degree. By 2016, sub-Saharan immigrants were less likely than natives to have completed high school, and their edge in college degrees has decreased from a roughly 27% margin to a 8% one.

I never said that chain migration happens right away. Just because it's a lengthy process does not make it good policy. We have a philosophical disagreement here, as I believe that America needs to be more selective and selfish in terms of its immigration policy. Ultimately, what variables are we going to optimize for? If raw population and GDP are the most important variables, then the current policy probably makes sense. But if you care more about GDP per capita, wages, labor supply, etc., then you will opt for the system that the conservatives espouse.

Let's agree to disagree here. If you refuse to recognize the reliability of IQ tests are very much in question that's fine. SAT scores are highly correlated with income, East Asians are some of the richest in this country and Hispanics are some of the poorest, let's gloss over that fact though. I don't take any issue with you saying IQ test scores of East Asians and SAT scores of East Asians are higher than that of Hispanics, but as usual, you push your narrative without context.

" If you increase the immigrant pool, you will dilute the quality with respect to education and skills"

Are you really alleging that there aren't enough educated and skilled people in the world outside of the United States to meet our 1 million quota? That's a joke right?

Diminishing returns are hitting Africans, no surprise, the advantage was far too massive in the first place and native-born Americans are going to college more than ever.

Good talk, we disagree, that's fine. I think this discussion has played out as expected.

Let's agree to disagree here. If you refuse to recognize the reliability of IQ tests are very much in question that's fine. SAT scores are highly correlated with income, East Asians are some of the richest in this country and Hispanics are some of the poorest, let's gloss over that fact though. I don't take any issue with you saying IQ test scores of East Asians and SAT scores of East Asians are higher than that of Hispanics, but as usual, you push your narrative without context.

" If you increase the immigrant pool, you will dilute the quality with respect to education and skills"

Are you really alleging that there aren't enough educated and skilled people in the world outside of the United States to meet our 1 million quota? That's a joke right?

Diminishing returns are hitting Africans, no surprise, the advantage was far too massive in the first place and native-born Americans are going to college more than ever.

Good talk, we disagree, that's fine. I think this discussion has played out as expected.

4.) I'll ignore that egregious IQ comment, which is essentially saying that Asians are smarter than Hispanics. There is alot of evidence that IQ tests aren't even reliable. Honestly it doesn't matter anyway, you can contribute positively to this nation without a high IQ through hard work and determination.

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

I know you genuinely believe this and have been misled by studies from social "scientists" with shitty data, but all leading bioinformatics and big data research regarding race and IQ is starting to show that, ON AVERAGE, there are racial differences in IQ. This is work being done by some of the leading physicists and biophysicists in the world; not some radical alt-right racist.

As well, it's been shown that IQ is in fact the LEADING predictor of success, educational attainment and wealth. I'm not saying that hard work and certain personality traits don't count for something, but to say IQ "doesn't matter" is completely wrong and disingenuous.

If you care to learn from one of the leaders in the world on the subject (Stephen Hsu, Caltech and Berkeley trained physicist, head of physics at MSU) go ahead, but be prepared. He is very PC about it, but he will present rock hard evidence and data (he's also hilariously been labeled a racist a few times by progressive soft science academics, while he basically thinks soft science data and conclusions are bullshit and for retards, as most physicists are prone to think. I don't know if there is someone else on the planet who could come off as less racist)...

I was going to link to Steve Hsu. I'm a big fan of his. He's actually a lifelong Democrat, not some alt-right fanboy. The guy is a freaking genius: graduated Caltech at age 19, physics Phd from Berkeley, Junior Fellow at Harvard. I corresponded with him via e-mail a few times because I read his blog regularly and asked a question about IQ and genetics. I was in b-school at the time and taking a bunch of finance courses, and he told me an amusing anecdote about how when he was a junior fellow at Harvard, he decided to audit a derivatives course taught by Robert Merton (Nobel Prize winner for his work on Black-Scholes and LTCM partner) at HBS. While the MBAs were struggling to understand the concepts, he breezed through, deriving everything himself using stochastic calculus. He got bored, much to Merton's chagrin.

IQ is one of the most well studied concepts in all of social science. When people say that "IQ tests are not reliable," what they are getting at is that certain tests may over or under weight certain aspects of intelligence and that at the upper extreme, most IQ tests can't efficiently differentiate geniuses from each other. This does not mean, however, that IQ is not a valid psychometric concept, nor does it mean that IQ cannot necessarily be measured. If you design a super hard test covering topics such as math, physics, statistics, etc., it will become clear who the geniuses are. Extreme examples of this would be the International Mathematical Olympiad for high school students and the Putnam Exam for college students.

More broadly speaking, it is interesting that liberals get super triggered whenever we cite empirical data that does not conform to their reality. The most prevalent examples include data on IQ and crime.

Yea, Steve seems like a pretty cool dude, and it would be awesome to grab a beer with the guy one day. It's amazing how smart some people are though, as you said. I have a pretty high level of education (not a PhD) in a very technical field from a top university, and I'm now getting an M7MBA, and sometimes when I read his blog I feel like a dunce.

Trump should communicate like he did in this interview all the time. Just stay on point about the issues and don't go on unnecessary Twitter rants. I understand much of the media is sensationalist in covering him but he gives them so much fodder usually. Maybe he's just more comfortable in a one-on-one setting.

On illegal immigration the only reason Democrats bleed for them is because a vast majority of them are Latino and there are obvious benefits to staying in America instead of going back to gasp shit hole like El Salvador, Mexico, Honduras, etc.

More illegals = pressure to legalize then became Citizens = groom your future voting base for eons to come.

Please tell us a little bit more about yourself to send you the most relevant notifications

Get Notified?

Investment Banking is BrokenI just left IB and went entrepreneurship way, so this is a bit of a rant post and a throwaway account, but felt like I need to share.
With all do respect to hard-working individuals out there - investment banking industry is broken and absolutely worthless. The advisory side is the most...

The Mechanics of a Mispricing There have been a few other related posts that I have commented on recently that touched on mispricings and catalysts. I wanted to take some time and write something up that brings it all together in one post. This is something that took me a while to understand and come around to when I was...

AMA: Non-Target -> 3rd Year Analyst MM IBUnfortunately turning comments on a pitch deck today so I have some time in between turns to do an AMA. Thought I'd give back to the community here now that I'm wrapping up my 3rd year at a MM. Definitely wouldn't be here today if it wasn't for WSO.
###Quick background...

Learning Curve as 2nd Year Analyst I am currently working as an investment banking analyst at a BB and 6 months after starting the job, I feel the learning curve flattens very quickly. I don't learn much from making another pitch book and even in the live deal, I feel the work I do isn't particularly exciting. Since...

How I messed up my career and then got it back on trackA little mini rant/story about how I messed up my career but have finally (I hope at least) gotten it back on track.
I started off on a Big Four graduate scheme. Initially in audit but then moved over to the transactions side. Great learning experience, worked on big clients, but not exactly...

Nuances of Corporate Finance in each IndustryI want to start a thread talking about the nuances of corporate finance within each industry (Oil & Gas, Healthcare/Pharma, Aerospace & Defense, Manufacturing, Consumer Packaged Goods, etc).
The impression I've gotten is that you can bounce around between industries in the first...

Top Chicago IB Background: Notre Dame sophomore looking into Investment Banking internships/jobs in Chicago.
Was wondering if there was a list or if people had suggestions of top IB firms and groups to start networking with.

The WSO Job Board is Now FREE The WSO Job board is now free for anyone that wants to apply...all anyone has to do is upload a resume and they will be allowed to submit their application. Create Your Oasis Job Profile
Here's a peak inside:

Why do most people suck at Excel?Microsoft Excel: the lifeblood of 21st century finance and business. A phenomenal spreadsheet tool used by the lowest level analysts through the most executive tier of management. A wonderful program capable of performing complex mathematics, charting graphs and calculating thousands of data...